ACTA deals in both digital and physical piracy. Some of its provisions apply to things such as counterfeit pharmaceuticals or imposter parts. But the majority of its controversial sections apply to policing the internet

The key word in the title Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is "agreement". ACTA is not a treaty nor a law, although it seeks to assume powers typically only granted to such legislative instruments. Firmly supported by President Barack Obama, the bill was long kept secret from the public with drafts only available thanks to Wikileaks.

A series of leaks forced the Obama administration to revise its big-media-friendly ACTA proposal several times. Now the administration is pushing the EU to sign.
[Image Source: Security Blog]

In April 2010, a public draft finally aired, trimming some of the more severe provisions of early drafts like mandatory three strikes internet blacklisting for pirates, arbitrary device seizures by border patrol agents, and charges for "imminent infringement" (a form of thought-crime consisting of charging people for merely visiting a known piracy site, under the assumption that they were likely to pirate next). Still the draft has drawn substantial controversy, even as it's gone through subsequent revisions to soften the blow. Many take issue with the fact that the Obama administration claims the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 gives ex ante approval to the bill.

So far the Obama administration has joined with a handful of other top nation-states -- Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea -- to embrace the measure. But the proposal's ultimate retention or abandonment may hinge on the biggest nation bloc to not yet sign on the dotted line -- the European Union.

II. EU Leans Towards Rejection

The EU will deliver their ACTA verdict in June. But things aren't looking good for the agreement. Thus far only 22 out of 27 member states have signed the treaty. Notable abstainers include Denmark and Germany, where waves of protests have swayed the government to reconsider the pact, its high sticker cost, and its potentially ruinous privacy implications.

As a lead up to a full fledged examination by the European Court of Justice, as ordered by the European Commission following member complaints, the assistant European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) Giovanni Buttarelli delivered a 20 page analysis of the tenative agreement.

The review was a mixed bag for ACTA's proponents. In it Mr. Buttarelli writes, "the monitoring of user's behavior and of their electronic communications on the internet [could be] highly intrusive to the private sphere of individuals and, if not implemented properly, may therefore interfere with their rights and freedoms."

The EU is weighing the cost of ACTA to freedoms. [Image Source: AFP]

Supporters will likely interpret the criticism as a request to reword the document yet again, in hopes of placating fears of a 1984 or V is for Vendetta-like blanket of ubiquitous government surveillance.

With the abstainers agreeing to make a final decision in June, European Commissioner for Digital Agenda, Neelie Kroes, sounded decidedly pessimistic about passage prospects, commenting that EU citizens would "likely to be in a world without SOPA and without ACTA". Ms. Kroes -- perhaps best know for her epic antitrust fines of Intel Corp. (INTC) and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) -- called on member states to "find solutions to make the Internet a place of freedom, openness, and innovation fit for all citizens."

She says the EU must tread a fine line between freedom and anarchy, commenting, "Yes the Internet should be open; and yes it should be free. But that is not the same as being a lawless wild west."

In responses to widespread public protests by Anonymous and other activist groups in the region, Ms. Kroes remarks, "This is a strong new political voice. And as a force for openness, I welcome it, even if I do not always agree with everything it says on every subject."

III. If No ACTA, What's Next for the EU

One compelling reason why the proposal may stall is simply money. While big media commands a deep-pocketed influence on EU politicians, much as it does in the U.S., the EU is also on the verge of a second dip in the cesspool of recession. An expensive proposal to police citizens comes at an especially inopportune time for a cash-strapped EU.

Europe is a land of diverse opinions regarding how to "treat" the piracy issue.
[Image Source: Otto de Voogd/Flickr]

On the polar opposite end of the spectrum are politicians like Liberal Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake and Swedish Pirate Party MEP Christian Engström, who openly support movements like Anonymous and the Pirate Party. These figures accuse current leadership of corruption and favoritism in perpetuating what they view as a broken system. While they would ideally like to protect content creators, they argue that current laws are non-sensical, destructive, and punitive.

Which of the extremes will win out in the end remains to be seen as the copyright conflict intensifies.

I would argue that effective enforcement of Intellectual Property (IP) rights is not only important but critical to economic growth around the world. Innovators might be less willing to put their ideas, products, art, etc. out there, if there is a good chance it will be stolen or pirated. Internet piracy and counterfeit goods hurt trade and hinder economies from competing well in the global market. ACTA was created to try and curb these problems.

a lot of what your talking about is covered by agreements within the WTO, yet china continues to produce a vast surplus of these counterfeit goods. How about enforcing existing laws and treaties before creating new ones which look mainly to be about stripping more rights away from the end consumer

Or how about having actual trademarks / copyrights enforced.Look at the IT industry, the creation of monopolies, people copying each other and yet the government doesn't give shit, because their pockets are so deep to fight litigate vs government.

Same shit different day. The government turns the blind eye when its convienent, cause if its fubar they can repeal the law or create a new one.

quote: Innovators might be less willing to put their ideas, products, art, etc. out there, if there is a good chance it will be stolen or pirated.

There is another side to that idea. If someone never releases their product for fear it will be pirated, then they will never make any money at all from that product. It comes down to deciding if you take the small economic hit from piracy or the total economic hit from refusing to release. Then there is the possibility of the ultimate loss where you hold back your product then someone else releases a similar product and makes millions from it and turns your produce into a might-have-been.

Every word you say has the possibility of being copied, but should you remain silent and never share what you have to say with the world, or do you speak, and make your point in a way that they remember YOU as the one who said something regardless of how many others may copy it? Many people own copies of a Picasso, but does anyone call that work by the name of the person who copied it?

When you purchase a string line trimmer, do you go to the hardware store salesperson and ask for a string line trimmer or a Weedeater? Weedeater was the name of the company that originally made the product. Many companies copied it, and many improved on it, but the original companies name is what has stuck around. I completely believe in giving full credit to the creator of an idea and try to purchase original works as much as possible. I have also seen people who work as artist solely for the purpose of making money and usually their works are inferior to those who are artist for the sake of being artist and count monetary rewards as secondary.

quote: Internet piracy and counterfeit goods hurt trade and hinder economies from competing well in the global market. ACTA was created to try and curb these problems.

There are already laws on the books to cover these problems. ACTA was envisioned by groups like the RIAA and MPAA as a way to strong arm their dominance while producing works of questionable quality and has been seized upon by governments as a backdoor opening into subverting checks and balances on their authority such as the U.S Constitution here in the United States. Fully implemented as is ACTA will circumvent the protections on U.S. citizens from unwarranted search and seizure guaranteed them by the Constitution because of a loophole that allows a Treaty with another country to override those protections. There are groups in the world that do not believe average people should have the right to govern themselves and the U.S. Constitution is a document they would love to see shredded and are trying their best to do just that.